The Kashmir Issue: Origin and Consequences.

By: Kartik Gupta

India pulls out of the SAARC summit​­-The news trending recently reflects the latest response of the Indian government with respect to the recent terror attacks at Uri by Pakistan based terrorist groups.   We've seen people pouring their discontent strongly over social media by posting statuses, tweets etc. condemning the violence near the town of Uri. But it's alarming to see how many people are still not clear as to what is the root of these unfortunate events in the beautiful valley of Kashmir.   A myopic view to the issue among many is that Pakistan has no right over Kashmir and India is the lone country that has any claim over the valley. This is true but the issue is not as simple as it is perceived to be. Through this article I aim to bring a clear picture about what exactly is the issue and what went wrong.  

 After the partition of India and Pakistan, as we all know democracy was established and all the 560 princely states had to sign an "Instrument of Accession" under the Government of India Act (1935) and the Indian Independence act (1947). At that time, Jammu and Kashmir was being ruled by ​Maharaja Hari Singh​ and he too was presented with the same instrument as was  presented to the other princely states. 

Hari Singh wanted his state to remain independent, for which he signed a stand­still agreement which stated that J&K need some time to think. Neither Pakistan nor India was ready to accept an independent Jammu and Kashmir. Few years later, there was a revolution by Muslims in the western part of Kashmir (Muzaffarabad). J&K was connected to India through a district of the Punjab, but its population was 70 per cent Muslim and it shared a boundary with Pakistan. Hence, it was anticipated that the Maharaja would accede to Pakistan when the British paramountcy ended on 15 August.   

When he hesitated to do this, Pakistan launched an attack by which they meant to frighten its ruler into submission. Hari Singh tried to counter the invasion but failed. As a result,on 26  October Maharaja appealed to Lord Mountbatten (the last Viceroy Of British India and First  Governor General of Independent India.), for assistance, Lord agreed on a condition that the  ruler accede to India. The ruler signed the accession. Indian soldiers were immediately transfered to Srinagar. India and Pakistan began their first war Indo­-Pak war 1947 in less than three months of coming into being as independent states.    

Local tribal militias and the Pakistani forces moved to take Srinagar but on reaching Uri they encountered defensive forces. Indian and Pakistani armies entered the war subsequently. The fronts solidified gradually.    

India approached the United Nations, asking it to solve the dispute. On 1 January 1949, a cease­fire line separating the Indian­ and Pakistani­ controlled parts of Kashmir was formally put into effect. In 1972, the then ­current border between the Indian­ and Pakistani­ controlled parts of Kashmir was designated as the "Line Of Control"

Subsequently the UNCIP charter was signed which called for the withdrawal of Pakistani forces from the valley and only after that would the Indian troops withdraw. Also the condition of plebiscite was subject to the conditions that must be fulfilled by both the nations, but as we know that never happened.  Pakistan tried to impose a military solution to J&K yet again in 1965 by instigating a war against India. By imposing a war, Pakistan negated the very purpose of the cease fire that was initiated by the UNSC in 1948, thus rendering the UN verdict useless.

Now, we're talking about going to war with Pakistan. But that is simply not an option because of the consequences on world peace. It won't be a reach to say that it may result in triggering a World War III mainly because of China's involvement with Pakistan in relation to the CPEC, (It is a $46 billion investment in Pakistan by China to build a trade route all the way from Kashghar in  China’s Xinjiang province to Gwadar port in Pakistan’s Balochistan province.). Also, the repercussions of the Sino­Indian war of 1962 doesn't help for India.    

Some argue that US will come to India's aid but that may not be true given the fact that it's  estimated that China's economy will overpower US economy and also the quantum of US debt  that China holds. Thus, it may verbally condemn the actions of Pakistan, but as far as the  question remains as to whether they would stand beside us in case of a military attack is still  under ambiguity. Same is the case with Russia.    

So, now we are in a fix and as much as we criticize the government for not taking a more aggressive approach towards this issue, it's also imperative that we understand the complexities behind it. People may argue that going to UN in 1948 was a premature step and that India had a good leverage and could've brokered a better deal when they signed the Shimla Agreement of 1972, the point remains that what's done is done and still there is no credible solution to this  issue.